Memorandum submitted by NDCS
NDCS welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence
to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the progress the Government
is making towards ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Throughout our submission,
we highlight how the needs of deaf children in the UK and globally
must be taken into account. Our submission provides a response
to the issues requested by the Committee.
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 The National Deaf Children's Society
(NDCS) is the national charity dedicated to creating a world without
barriers for deaf children and young people. We represent the
interests and campaign for the rights of all deaf children and
young people from birth until they reach independence. There are
over 35,000 deaf children in the UK and three more are born every
day. Worldwide, there are around 20 million deaf children, 80%
of whom live in developing countries. Deaf Child Worldwide works
with partners in the countries where need is greatest throughout
the world and is the international development agency of NDCS.
1.2 NDCS believes that the family is the
most important influence on a deaf child's development. NDCS supports
the deaf child through the family as well as directly supporting
deaf children and young people themselves.
1.3 By deaf, we mean anyone with a permanent
or temporary hearing loss. This could be a mild, moderate, severe
or profound hearing loss. The term deaf does not presuppose the
use of any one communication method and could refer to children
who communicate orally or through sign language. We also include
children who have a hearing loss in just one ear.
2. TIMETABLE
FOR RATIFICATION
2.1 Given the extensive UK involvement in
the development and early signature of this Convention, NDCS is
disappointed that ratification has been subject to delays. A substantial
opportunity for the UK to take a leading role in the establishment
of a UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has
now been missed. NDCS welcome the Committee's support for a speedy
ratification process and hope the UK will soon join the 41 states
that have already ratified. We hope that further delay can now
be avoided and that the second opportunity to join the Committee,
when the number of states ratifying reaches 60, is not missed.
3. PROPOSALS
FOR RESERVATIONS
AND INTERPRETATIVE
DECLARATIONS—GENERAL
3.1 NDCS considers that neither reservations
nor interpretative declarations are necessary prerequisites for
ratifying the Convention in the UK. We therefore welcome the Committee's
investigation of the Government's proposals and hope it can encourage
the Government to withdraw as many of these as possible. NDCS
is concerned that by making reservations the UK risks devaluing
the importance of this Convention both in the UK and around the
world. NDCS believes that for the UK to ratify without reservation
or limitation would demonstrate to the world the importance it
places on disability rights.
3.2 The majority of countries in the world
do not have any disability rights legislation and so for many
deaf children, this will be the first time their rights have been
enshrined in law. The CRPD presents an historic opportunity for
Deaf Child Worldwide and their partners to promote the rights
of deaf children around the world, many of whom live in poverty
and isolation. Only six states have found it necessary to make
any reservations or interpretive declarations. Given the long
history of disability rights and discrimination legislation within
the UK, NDCS believes the Government should be leading by example
in this area and making it clear to deaf children throughout the
world that they have the same rights afforded to hearing children.
4. PROPOSALS
FOR RESERVATIONS
AND INTERPRETATIVE
DECLARATIONS—EDUCATION
4.1 As education is a key issue for NDCS,
we limit our comments to the proposed reservation and interpretive
declaration to Article 24. Around the world it is estimated that
98% of disabled children are not in school. The Millennium Development
Goal on education will not be met unless widespread action is
taken by all states to provide quality education for deaf children.
In the UK, deaf children are 42% less likely than hearing children
to achieve five grade A to C GCSE's.i Deafness is not a learning
disability. Our Close the Gap campaign is calling on the
Government to commit to closing this attainment gap by 2022.ii
4.2 NDCS believe the proposed reservation
and declaration to Article 24 are inconsistent with other provisions
in the CRPD and unnecessary. We understand that the Government's
concerns relate to the terms "inclusive" and "in
the communities in which they live".
4.3 On the matter of inclusion, NDCS supports
the view that inclusion is a state, not a location, and that a
continuum of provision is necessary in order to ensure effective
inclusion for all deaf children in terms of achievement, full
participation and quality of experience.
4.4 For deaf children to experience successful
inclusion, their educational placements (whether mainstream or
special, maintained, non-maintained or independent) should be
"Deaf-Friendly" in accordance with NDCS published guidelines
and recommended standards.
4.5 Although provision across the UK has
not yet achieved this state of inclusion, NDCS does not accept
that Article 24 is in anyway inconsistent with this interpretation
of inclusion. Therefore the interpretive declaration is unnecessary.
4.6 The NDCS position on education is based
on the principle of informed choice. NDCS sees this as the goal
of ensuring that every family of every deaf child is supported
with the information and resources they need to make genuinely
informed choices in the best interests of their child. The term
informed choice is an important concept and is the process whereby
parents of deaf children make decisions about communication options,
education placements, amplification and technological equipment
as a result of receiving impartial, comprehensive, clear and accurate
information. We believe this approach is wholly compatible with
the CRPD. In particular, it is supported by Article 3 (a) on General
principlesiii and Article 7 (1) on Children with disabilities.iv
4.7 On the matter of the term "in the
communities in which they live", NDCS again disagrees with
the necessity for a reservation. We would remind both the Joint
Committee and the Government that this Article must be read in
light of provisions in Article 7. Article 7 makes it clear that
in all actions concerning disabled children, "the best interests
of the child shall be a primary consideration".
4.8 NDCS supports the view that whilst deaf
children are entitled to have their needs met in a mainstream
school in their local community, for some deaf children full access
to and involvement in the educational and social life of a school
can be provided only in a specialist placement. Therefore in some
cases it may be "in the best interests of the child"
to be further away from home. This does not mean that the child
should be excluded from the community in which they live and again
we would refer to our belief that inclusion is a state rather
than a location. We therefore believe the current educational
provisions in the UK, including mainstream and special schools,
are compatible with the CRPD.
4.9 NDCS strongly believes more can, and
should, be done to improve the quality and choice of educational
provisions for deaf children both in the UK and around the world;
however we do not think this will be achieved by making reservations
to the CRPD.
5. RATIFICATION
OF THE
OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
AND THE
RIGHT TO
INDIVIDUAL PETITION
5.1 The CRPD provides deaf children with
the right to express their views freely, and have their views
given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity (Article
7). Ratification of the Optional Protocol would provide deaf children
with a mechanism to exercise this right by bringing complaints
to a UN Committee. Deaf children should have as much of a right
as other children to challenge violations of their rights. NDCS
is concerned about the lack of an individual right to petition
for deaf children and would urge the UK Government to reverse
its position on ratification of the Optional Protocol.
I hope this submission is helpful. We would
be very happy to discuss in more detail any of the points raised
in this submission.
REFERENCES
i Parmit Dhanda MP, then Parliamentary Under-Secretary
of State for Education and Skills, March 2007.
ii NDCS, 2008. Must do better! Barriers to
achievement by deaf children, London.
iii "Respect for inherent dignity, individual
autonomy including the freedom to make one's own choices"
iv "States Parties shall ensure that children
with disabilities have the right to express their views freely
on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight
in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with
other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate
assistance to realize this right"
| 
